[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Wed Oct 13 18:11:49 EDT 2010 

Fair enough, I see Avri's point. But we need to strongly express the issues
we have with the process.




> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:57 -0400
> To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think if you can get someone into the room, you get someone into the room.
> 
> There is more that can be done than just making formal statements.  And often
> being in the room is critical.  E.g. It allows you to pass notes to your
> favorite contact from a national delegation.  It allows you to join in the
> coffee chatter during breaks.
> 
> Which reminds me, if we are back to this state of affairs, people have to
> start looking at getting into their national delegations again.  This was a
> powerful aid to CS during WSIS when only delegations were allowed into some
> rooms. Having the right colored badge can be critical.
> 
> All the memories and tricks learned in the bad old days come flooding back.
> Ouch!
> 
> And yes, we should find some way to set up a parallel meeting in NYC.  Perhaps
> someone local to city with resources, i mean rooms, can help make that
> possible.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:48, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
>> And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate
>> under these terms?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>> 
>> Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if
>> possible
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200
>> To: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no
>> impact.  Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking
>> about us in the first place.  If anything, it could be taken as evidence we
>> don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice.  In a similar vein, in
>> Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to
>> ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS
>> participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much
>> irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed.
>> 
>> While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider
>> trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this.  We've made common cause in the
>> past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state
>> actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly
>> than CS complaining solo.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>> 
>>> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process,
>>> leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give
>>> up our voice.
>>>  
>>>  In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was
>>> precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at
>>> the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement.
>>>  
>>>  We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other
>>> non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who
>>> agree make separate and united statements.
>>>  
>>>  This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced
>>> cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong,
>>> reinforced--not inundated, valid position.
>>>  
>>>  We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and
>>> others working with this issue?
>>>  
>>>  Best, gp
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>>    
>>>> Agree that this is a farce.
>>>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or
>>>> inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach?
>>>> --MM
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>>>  Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM
>>>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>  Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Hi All
>>>>  
>>>>  Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what
>>>> is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on
>>>> 14th December.
>>>>  
>>>>  However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open
>>>> as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/
>>>> ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation'
>>>> itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '.
>>>>  
>>>>  It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC,
>>>> (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be
>>>> even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be
>>>> more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open,
>>>> though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance,
>>>> do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to
>>>> ensure/protect, UN style)
>>>>  
>>>>  However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be
>>>> allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of
>>>> allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the
>>>> consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental
>>>> stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are
>>>> calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open
>>>> consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such.
>>>>  
>>>>  In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member
>>>> states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to
>>>> be held on....."
>>>>  
>>>>  So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all
>>>> member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC
>>>> resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter
>>>> itself. 
>>>>  
>>>>  I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an
>>>> open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no
>>>> changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not
>>>> to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written
>>>> contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov
>>>> stakeholders' offer.
>>>>  
>>>>  On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that
>>>> the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps,
>>>> which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss
>>>> and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format.
>>>>  
>>>>  Parminder 
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  Ginger (Virginia) Paque
>>>  IGCBP Online Coordinator
>>>  DiploFoundation
>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>>> 
>>> The latest from Diplo...
>>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu  <http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/> is the online
>>> companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on
>>> IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>  Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list